Not on center stage, but off in the wings

Thursday

Sep 30, 2010 at 3:15 AM

Expanding gambling may not be the 800-pound gorilla in the room during this election campaign, but that does not mean it has left the building.

As state lawmakers and other state officials deal with the impact the present economic challenges are placing on the delivery of state services and the ability of taxpayers to pay for them, the idea of allowing more gambling inevitably comes up as a way to for the state to rake in more revenue without having to increase the taxes people or businesses already pay.

So far that has not become a major plank in any candidate's platform. But voters should not interpret this lack of talk of expanded gambling to mean that the interest has gone away. The supporters of expanded gambling still believe in their cause and they will certainly continue to make their case.

But there are growing indications that the people of this state should treat the arguments in favor of expanded gambling more skeptically than before.

Increasingly, Americans are worried about gambling's harmful effects on individuals and families. About 70 percent of Americans believe that legalized gambling encourages people to gamble more than they can afford, according to a Pew Research Center survey in 2006. That's a noteworthy increase from 1989, when 62 percent expressed that concern in a Gallup survey.

In addition, the public is less and less convinced by claims made by the gambling industry that casinos and the like fuel economic growth. In locale after locale, citizens are realizing that they were snookered by politicians' promises that casinos would provide a problem-free explosion in jobs and income from tourism.

The reality is that gambling is a net economic and social minus — despite its contributions to state tax rolls and the fact that some people enjoy it. Lately such negatives have increasingly been costing the gambling industry at the ballot box. Between 2004 and 2008, voters and legislatures thwarted casino-expansion plans in 10 states while granting zero approvals. This year, while the Massachusetts House and Senate passed a bill to allow expanded gambling, it hit a dead end when the Legislature and Gov. Devall Patrick couldn't agree on how the licenses for the gambling venues should be allotted. Here in New Hampshire, while the Senate earlier this year passed a bill to legalize up to 10,000 video slots at four locations, the House later killed it.

Speakers at a recent regional conference in Connecticut on the future of gambling concluded that the kind of economic windfall that gambling's supporters once touted are becoming a thing of the past. That is because, as more and more states allow casinos or slot machine parlors, fewer and fewer of them have a virtual geographical monopoly. If expanded gambling becomes a reality in Massachusetts, then Connecticut, which for many years has been a popular gambling destination for people throughout New England, would be forced to increase its in-state marketing, because gamblers from Massachusetts would have no need to travel to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun casinos.

Voters should ask candidates point-blank where they stand on expanded gambling and, if they hear candidates painting glowing pictures of what casinos and slot machines can do for the state, the voters should conclude that these candidates are ignoring reality.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.